Following up on the article on the Rafidaah Shia I would like to show the following as an example of the Rafidaahs real intention towards Ahlus Sunnah.

On the 5th of October 2010 the Rafidite heretic pagan regime of Iran executed three Sunnah Iranians by hanging. Normally the Rafidite regimes terrorizes the Sunnah of Balochestan/Iran by threatening the scholars (who dare to speak out) and the Sunnah activists who dare to spread Sunnah literature and those who openly response to the lies and attacks of the Rafidah Shia cult. Unfortunately the Rafidite regime has been spreading a stereotype all over in Iran, namely that Iranian balochis (virtually all Sunnah), are “only” executed because they are drug smugglers. (As if Balochi stands for drug smuggler, even though mostly non-Iranian Balochis are heavy drug addict and smugglers, like Khamenei and its Rev. guards.)

It is true that the poor Iranian Baloch Sunnis are involved in smuggling at the border region of Iran, (many youth, even though Balochistan is a Sunnah area, are discriminated for being Sunni, thus having almost no chance to make a living by legal means) yet this became literally a stereotype (Baloch being smugglers) that every Balochi Iranian who raises his voice or is been executed is demonized as a “drug smuggler”. Even though many Sunnah Iranians in Balochestan have been executed under the pretext of “smuggling” and what not, in this case you can clearly hear the Basijis and other “Hezbollahi” (Hezbosh-shaitani) Rafidites who know better than all of us, that the crime of those being hanged is their belief, which they -the Rafidah- call “Wahhabism”. ﻿ ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

For those who want to know more on the Rafidaah and how they treat our brothers and sisters in Iran, Please visit Sons of Sunnah Iran. Also we should be aware that Sunni Muslims have now been banned from praying in universities in Iran.

What I support is the Quran and Sunnah and when it tells us that a person is to be killed, Muslim or otherwise, then we support them being killed. Your question as to do I support the killing of non Muslims is quite general and I am not sure what exactly you mean. For example I support the killing of US troops and of many other non Muslims, I also support the killing of the Muslim adulterer.

If a Muslim becomes Shia then the hujjah must first be applied upon him to tell if he has committed major kufr. If that is the case then he as all apostates should be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he should be beheaded. While we say the geenral rule is that all Rafidaah are kaffir that does not mean we make takfir of the individual without applying the hujjah.

Note that I did not say that all Shia are kaffir also, some of them are indeed Muslim.

So in other words, they are doing exactly what you would be doing. Declaring apostasy on non-conformant people.How do you suggest then people live in a society, given the fact that not all will believe/follow the same thing?Shias also do that in the name of Allah, and what you support also you justify in the name of Allah. As such,this conflict, should it not be subject academic discussions?

Circumstances prevented me for getting online so I apologise for the late reply.

We dont declare apostasy on non comformist people, we declare takfir of those who do shirk and kufr and on who the hujjah has been applied and there are no preventative measures.

We should live in society according to how the Quran and Sunnah tell us to. While there is no problem discussing these issues with them when the time comes for an Islamic state I dont think it will be a case of even consulting them, given that they are kuffar (the Raafidah). As for the Shia groups which are inside Islam then as Muslims their opinion should be respected given it does not go against Quran and Sunnah.

We could say about any group, Christians, Hindus or anyone else "should it not be subject academic discussions?" and we could continue discussing forever, yet that would get us nowhere.

I thought almost all of the sects of shias such as Twelvers etc are so deviant from sunni, which makes them borderline kufr (according to sunnis). Dont they use a very different collection of hadith from that of the sunni?

Also you say you dont declare apostasy on non-conformist people, but if someone converts to shia, why subject him? is the act of changing to shia a prime suspect of commiting kufr?

And in an islamic state, you wont even consult them? Don't islamic state allow for co-existence of non-muslims? History gives evidence to this.

"..I also support the killing of the Muslim adulterer"based on what? I thought its flogging only.

Yes they do use different ahadith and yes most of them such as the 12vers are considered as kuffar by many of the ulaama. But there are some who are relatively close to Ahlus Sunnah such as the Zaydis.

What exactl do you mean by non conformist people as I am not sure I am understanding you. By not conforming to a particular aspect of Islam does not mean a person is a kaffir. He only becomes a kaffir when he does something which is shirk or kufr and even then there are situations in which he still will not be declared a kaffir.

We are people who judge by the apparent and we dont try to go looking for kufr in a person. It is only when that person makes their kufr or shirk evident that Muslims will then have to look into it. You seem to have the impression that I would have "witch hunts" but believe me that is not true.

An Islamic State does allow for the existance of non Muslims but the ruling on the original kuffar such as the Jews and Christians and those who apostate, or who claim Islam while engaging in Shirk are different. But even for the Jews and Christians they would only be consulted on particular issues which may be relevant to them. If you look at the position the Sahaba took towards those who refused to pay Zakat then this is the posisiton we should takes towards the groups of kufr.

I support the killing of the adulterer based on the Sahih ahadith on this issue.